An adjustable stencil for taking your statistics-based infographic to the streets (with temporary spray chalk, of course).
Neat idea, though the adjustability means it’s not a very clean-looking image.
(via GOOD)

An adjustable stencil for taking your statistics-based infographic to the streets (with temporary spray chalk, of course).

Neat idea, though the adjustability means it’s not a very clean-looking image.

(via GOOD)

Just thinking through this…
Good Mag writes about The Living Principles for Design, a project that puts forward a series of questions for organizations to ponder in their approach, which fall along the usual four dimensions: environmental, social (they call it “people,” which is maybe a better word for that dimension), cultural and economic.  
Then someone mapped a few sustainability-and/or-design-oriented organizations based on how they focus their efforts — the coloured rings represent each of the four dimensions, and the surface area presumably estimates what proportion each dimension takes up of the organizations’ work/effort.  Green (for environment) appears in nearly every organization plotted, mainly because sustainability is primarily linked with green issues.
The map then plots these organizations on a graph, which begins to act as a first step in explaining the philosophical differences between organizations.  Y-axis ranges from selective to integrated, which helps to visually separate single dimension organizations (lots of purely green dots) from multiple issue ones.  X-axis ranges from visionary (where the few pure orange dots lie, and many of the dots that include orange) to actionable (lots of pure green)
The “people” dimension are the orange rings — that’s the most interesting one to me.  It’s notoriously difficult to quantify social/people issues - the focus is too broad, the results too subjective or subtle or long-term.  

Just thinking through this…

Good Mag writes about The Living Principles for Design, a project that puts forward a series of questions for organizations to ponder in their approach, which fall along the usual four dimensions: environmental, social (they call it “people,” which is maybe a better word for that dimension), cultural and economic.  

Then someone mapped a few sustainability-and/or-design-oriented organizations based on how they focus their efforts — the coloured rings represent each of the four dimensions, and the surface area presumably estimates what proportion each dimension takes up of the organizations’ work/effort.  Green (for environment) appears in nearly every organization plotted, mainly because sustainability is primarily linked with green issues.

The map then plots these organizations on a graph, which begins to act as a first step in explaining the philosophical differences between organizations.  Y-axis ranges from selective to integrated, which helps to visually separate single dimension organizations (lots of purely green dots) from multiple issue ones.  X-axis ranges from visionary (where the few pure orange dots lie, and many of the dots that include orange) to actionable (lots of pure green)

The “people” dimension are the orange rings — that’s the most interesting one to me.  It’s notoriously difficult to quantify social/people issues - the focus is too broad, the results too subjective or subtle or long-term.  

Urban planner with a penchant for social policy, public engagement, infographics, illustration, and zee artz. This is a small collection of notes-to-self.